[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd
From: |
Patrick Negre |
Subject: |
Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:05:02 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.3 |
I apologize for my bad english.
> > Is it really a good idea to create new name in the filesystem tree ? I
> > mean, a file must have only one path, create new nodes with binding is
> > confusing.
>
> Why must a file only have one path? This seems like a completely
> artificial and unnecessary restriction.
Yes, you are right "Must" is a little bit strong.
But, (correct me if i'm wrong) if a program ( view_1.exe ) open "thing.xml"
with a dir facet , then the directory "thing" is created in the fs.
Suppose an other program ( view_2.exe ) open the same file with a file facet
"sort", then a file "thing.sort" is created in the fs.
So, as a user if i explore the directory i will see 3 objects which are the
same, and if view_1.exe exits then the directory desapear, and same thing if
view_2.exe exits.
In a user point of view, i think it will be confusing, and even not wanted.
In the case of a view used only by programs, the user didn't need or want to
have the corresponding file in his fs.
Isn't the following case possible ? When a program, wanna access a file,
according to the filetype there are several translator that manage a facet
for the file. The program choose the facet it need and after that communicate
with the corresponding translator. That mean, programs can have a different
sub-filesystem rooted at the file if they access it with different
translator.
> In the case of the Windows setup.exe example, the problem is that setup
> discovers the location of the distribution directory by computing the
> path to the setup.exe binary, so if you have
>
> foo/bar/setup.exe
>
> the setup program assumes that the rest of the installation is described
> by a file
>
> foo/bar/setup.ins
I think setup.exe will need to access ./setup.ins. So that put no constraint
over the name of the containing directory, so it can be
"foo.tar.gz/bar/setup.ins", isn't it ?
And, how this problem is handled by the system :
Consider a file "foo.gz" that contain 2 file "a.txt" and "b.txt".
Suppose a program "p1.exe" open "foo.gz/a.txt" with a translator
and want an exclusive access to the file.
Suppose a program "gzip" open "foo.gz," and want to update it, whith a fresh
"b.txt".Then, gzip need access to rewrite "foo.gz", and then a write access
to "foo.gz/b.txt", and that is forbidden by "p1.exe" request.
But, gzip don't want to modify "foo.gz/b.txt", so his request don't hurt the
"p1.exe" request.
How the contradiction is resolved ?
Regards, Patrick N.
___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs
exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
- Re: Perils of Config Files (was DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd), (continued)
- Re: Perils of Config Files (was DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd), Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/02/09
- Re: Perils of Config Files (was DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/02/09
- Re: Perils of Config Files (was DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/02/09
- Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2006/02/07
- Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd, Marcus Brinkmann, 2006/02/07
Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd, Ludovic Courtès, 2006/02/06
Re: DogCows or Polymorphism in the Hurd,
Patrick Negre <=